idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC5357, but the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). (Using the creation date from RFC4656, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2000-11-22) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (January 5, 2018) is 2296 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFCXXXX' is mentioned on line 304, but not defined ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7594 -- Duplicate reference: RFC5357, mentioned in 'TimDISCUSS', was also mentioned in 'RFC5357'. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Morton, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft AT&T Labs 4 Updates: 4656 and 5357 (if approved) G. Mirsky, Ed. 5 Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corp. 6 Expires: July 9, 2018 January 5, 2018 8 OWAMP and TWAMP Well-Known Port Assignments 9 draft-ietf-ippm-port-twamp-test-00 11 Abstract 13 This memo explains the motivation and describes the re-assignment of 14 well-known ports for the OWAMP and TWAMP protocols for control and 15 measurement, and clarifies the meaning and composition of these 16 standards track protocol names for the industry. 18 The memo updates RFC 4656 and RFC 5357, in terms of the UDP well- 19 known port assignments. 21 Status of This Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 9, 2018. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 56 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 5. New Well-Known Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 5.1. Impact on TWAMP-Control Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 5.2. Impact on OWAMP-Control Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 5.3. Impact on OWAMP/TWAMP-Test Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 1. Introduction 74 The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first developed 75 the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol, OWAMP, specified in 76 [RFC4656]. Further protocol development to support testing resulted 77 in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol, TWAMP, specified in 78 [RFC5357]. 80 Both OWAMP and TWAMP require the implementation of a control and mode 81 negotiation protocol (OWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Control) which employs 82 the reliable transport services of TCP (including security 83 configuration and key derivation). The control protocols arrange for 84 the configuration and management of test sessions using the 85 associated test protocol (OWAMP-Test or TWAMP-Test) on UDP transport. 87 This memo recognizes the value of assigning a well-known UDP port to 88 the *-Test protocols, and that this goal can easily be arranged 89 through port re-assignments. 91 2. Requirements Language 93 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 94 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 95 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 97 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, 98 as shown here. 100 3. Scope 102 The scope of this memo is to re-allocate well-known ports for the UDP 103 Test protocols that compose necessary parts of their respective 104 standards track protocols, OWAMP and TWAMP, along with clarifications 105 of the complete protocol composition for the industry. 107 The memo updates [RFC4656] and [RFC5357], in terms of the UDP well- 108 known port assignments. 110 4. Definitions 112 This section defines key terms and clarifies the required composition 113 of the OWAMP and TWAMP standards-track protocols. 115 OWAMP-Control is the protocol defined in Section 3 of [RFC4656]. 117 OWAMP-Test is the protocol defined in Section 4 of [RFC4656]. 119 OWAMP is described in a direct quote from Section 1.1 of[RFC4656]: 120 "OWAMP actually consists of two inter-related protocols: OWAMP- 121 Control and OWAMP-Test." A similar sentence appears in Section 2 of 122 [RFC4656]. Since the consensus of many dictionary definitions of 123 "consist" is "composed or made up of", implementation of both OWAMP- 124 Control and OWAMP-Test are REQUIRED for standards-track OWAMP 125 specified in [RFC4656]. 127 TWAMP-Control is the protocol defined in Section 3 of [RFC5357]. 129 TWAMP-Test is the protocol defined in Section 4 of [RFC5357]. 131 TWAMP is described in a direct quote from Section 1.1 of [RFC5357]: 132 "Similar to OWAMP [RFC4656], TWAMP consists of two inter-related 133 protocols: TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test." Since the consensus of 134 many dictionary definitions of "consist" is "composed or made up of", 135 implementation of both TWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Test are REQUIRED for 136 standards-track TWAMP specified in [RFC5357]. 138 TWAMP Light is an idea described in Informative Appendix I of 139 [RFC5357], and includes an un-specified control protocol (possibly 140 communicating through non-standard means) combined with the TWAMP- 141 Test protocol. The TWAMP Light idea was relegated to the 142 Appendix because it failed to meet the requirements for IETF 143 protocols (there are no specifications for negotiating this form of 144 operation, and no specifications for mandatory-to-implement security 145 features), as described in the references below: 147 o Lars Eggert's Area Director review [LarsAD], where he pointed out 148 that having two variants of TWAMP, Light and Complete (called 149 standards track TWAMP here), required a protocol mechanism to 150 negotiate which variant will be used. See Lars' comment on Sec 151 5.2. The working group consensus was to place the TWAMP Light 152 description in Appendix I, and to refer to the Appendix only as an 153 "incremental path to adopting TWAMP, by implementing the TWAMP- 154 Test protocol first". 156 o Tim Polk's DISCUSS Ballot, which points out that TWAMP Light was 157 an incomplete specification because the key required for 158 authenticated and encrypted modes depended on the TWAMP-Control 159 Session key. See Tim's DISCUSS on 2008-07-16 [TimDISCUSS]. 160 Additional requirement statements were added in the Appendix to 161 address Tim's DISCUSS Ballot (see the last three paragraphs of 162 Appendix I in [RFC5357]). 164 Since the idea of TWAMP Light clearly includes the TWAMP-Test 165 component of TWAMP, it is considered reasonable for future systems to 166 use the TWAMP-Test well-known UDP port (whose re-allocated assignment 167 is requested here). Clearly, the TWAMP Light idea envisions many 168 components and communication capabilities beyond TWAMP-Test 169 (implementing the security requirements, for example), otherwise the 170 Appendix would be one sentence long (equivocating TWAMP Light with 171 TWAMP-Test only). 173 5. New Well-Known Ports 175 Originally, both TCP and UDP well-known ports were assigned to the 176 control protocols that are essential components of standards track 177 OWAMP and TWAMP. 179 Since OWAMP-Control and TWAMP-Control require TCP transport, they 180 cannot make use of the UDP ports which were originally assigned. 181 However, test sessions using OWAMP-Test or TWAMP-Test operate on UDP 182 transport. 184 This memo requests re-assignment of the UDP well-known port from the 185 Control protocol to the Test protocol (see the IANA Considerations 186 Section 7). Use of this UDP port is OPTIONAL in standards-track 187 OWAMP and TWAMP. It may simplify some operations to have a well- 188 known port available for the Test protocols, or for future 189 specifications involving TWAMP-Test to use this port as a default 190 port. 192 5.1. Impact on TWAMP-Control Protocol 194 Section 3.5 [RFC5357] describes the detailed process of negotiating 195 the Receiver Port number, on which the TWAMP Session-Reflector will 196 send and receive TWAMP-Test packets. The Control-Client, acting on 197 behalf of the Session-Sender, proposes the Receiver port number from 198 the Dynamic Port range [RFC6335]: 200 "The Receiver Port is the desired UDP port to which TWAMP-Test 201 packets will be sent by the Session-Sender (the port where the 202 Session-Reflector is asked to receive test packets). The Receiver 203 Port is also the UDP port from which TWAMP-Test packets will be 204 sent by the Session-Reflector (the Session-Reflector will use the 205 same UDP port to send and receive packets)." 207 It is possible that the proposed Receiver Port may be not available, 208 e.g., the port is in use by another test session or another 209 application. In this case: 211 "... the Server at the Session-Reflector MAY suggest an alternate 212 and available port for this session in the Port field. The 213 Control-Client either accepts the alternate port, or composes a 214 new Session-Request message with suitable parameters. Otherwise, 215 the Server uses the Accept field to convey other forms of session 216 rejection or failure to the Control Client and MUST NOT suggest an 217 alternate port; in this case, the Port field MUST be set to zero." 219 A Control Client that supports use of the allocated TWAMP-Test 220 Receiver Port Section 7 MAY request to use that port number in the 221 Request-TW-Session Command. If the Server does not support the 222 allocated TWAMP-Test Receiver Port, then it sends an alternate port 223 number in the Accept-Session message with Accept field = 0. Thus the 224 deployment of the allocated TWAMP Receiver Port number is backward 225 compatible with existing TWAMP-Control solutions that are based on 226 [RFC5357]. Of course, use of a UDP port number chosen from the 227 Dynamic Port range [RFC6335] will help to avoid the situation when 228 the Control-Client or Server finds the proposed port being already in 229 use. 231 5.2. Impact on OWAMP-Control Protocol 233 As described above, an OWAMP Control Client that supports use of the 234 allocated OWAMP-Test Receiver Port Section 7 MAY request to use that 235 port number in the Request-Session Command. If the Server does not 236 support the allocated OWAMP-Test Receiver Port (or does not have the 237 port available), then it sends an alternate port number in the 238 Accept-Session message with Accept field = 0. Further exchanges 239 proceed as already specified. 241 5.3. Impact on OWAMP/TWAMP-Test Protocols 243 OWAMP/TWAMP-Test may be used to measure IP performance metrics in an 244 Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) environment. Though algorithms to 245 balance IP flows among available paths have not been standardized, 246 the most common is the five-tuple that uses destination IP address, 247 source IP address, protocol type, destination port number, and source 248 port number. When attempting to monitor different paths in ECMP 249 network, it is sufficient to vary only one of five parameters, e.g. 250 the source port number. Thus, there will be no negative impact on 251 ability to arrange concurrent OWAMP/TWAMP test sessions between the 252 same test points to monitor different paths in the ECMP network when 253 using the re-allocated UDP port number as the Receiver Port, as use 254 of the port is optional. 256 6. Security Considerations 258 The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of 259 live paths are relevant here as well (see [RFC4656] and [RFC5357]). 261 When considering privacy of those involved in measurement or those 262 whose traffic is measured, the sensitive information available to 263 potential observers is greatly reduced when using active techniques 264 which are within this scope of work. Passive observations of user 265 traffic for measurement purposes raise many privacy issues. We refer 266 the reader to the security and privacy considerations described in 267 the Large Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP) Framework 268 [RFC7594], which covers both active and passive techniques. 270 The registered UDP port as the Receiver Port for OWAMP/TWAMP-Test 271 could become a target of denial-of-service (DoS) or used to aid man- 272 in-the-middle (MITM) attacks. To improve protection from the DoS 273 following methods are recommended: 275 o filtering access to the OWAMP/TWAMP Receiver Port by access list; 277 o using a non-globally routable IP address for the OWAMP/TWAMP 278 Session-Reflector address. 280 A MITM attack may try to modify the content of the OWAMP/TWAMP-Test 281 packets in order to alter the measurement results. However, an 282 implementation can use authenticated mode to detect modification of 283 data. In addition, use encrypted mode to prevent eavesdropping and 284 un-detected modification of the OWAMP/TWAMP-Test packets. 286 7. IANA Considerations 288 This memo requests re-allocation of two UDP port numbers from the 289 System Ports range [RFC6335]. Specifically, this memo requests that 290 IANA re-allocate UDP ports 861 and 862 as shown below, leaving the 291 TCP port assignments as-is: 293 +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+ 294 | Service | Port | Transpo | Description | Reference | 295 | Name | Numbe | rt Prot | | | 296 | | r | ocol | | | 297 +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+ 298 | owamp- | 861 | tcp | OWAMP-Control | [RFC4656] | 299 | control | | | | | 300 | owamp-test | 861 | udp | OWAMP-Test | [RFCXXXX] | 301 | | | | | | 302 | twamp- | 861 | tcp | TWAMP-Control | [RFC5357] | 303 | control | | | | | 304 | twamp-test | 862 | udp | TWAMP-Test Receiver | [RFCXXXX] | 305 | | | | Port | | 306 +------------+-------+---------+----------------------+-------------+ 308 Table 1 Re-allocated OWAMP and TWAMP Ports 310 where RFCXXXX is this memo when published. 312 8. Contributors 314 Richard Foote and Luis M. Contreras made notable contributions on 315 this topic. 317 9. Acknowledgements 319 The authors thank the IPPM working group for their rapid review; also 320 Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal and Luay Jalil for their participation and 321 suggestions. 323 10. References 325 10.1. Normative References 327 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 328 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 329 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 330 . 332 [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. 333 Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol 334 (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006, 335 . 337 [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. 338 Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", 339 RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008, 340 . 342 [RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S. 343 Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) 344 Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and 345 Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165, 346 RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011, 347 . 349 [RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., 350 Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale 351 Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, 352 DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015, 353 . 355 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 356 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 357 May 2017, . 359 10.2. Informative References 361 [LarsAD] "https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/ 362 LzcTPYhPhWhbb5-ncR046XKpnzo", April 2008. 364 [TimDISCUSS] 365 "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5357/history/", July 366 2008. 368 Authors' Addresses 370 Al Morton (editor) 371 AT&T Labs 372 200 Laurel Avenue South 373 Middletown, NJ 07748 374 USA 376 Phone: +1 732 420 1571 377 Fax: +1 732 368 1192 378 Email: acmorton@att.com 379 Greg Mirsky (editor) 380 ZTE Corp. 382 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com